Passy

Love your dream. If the dream ever became a reality we would have far more accountable leaders in both politics and business.

Passy you wrote
"We elect politicians for a number of years and they can do whatever they like" and "Thus the President is elected by everyone across Australia."
Passy a friendly question to you. When we can press more when the head of the state is elected direct from the people or when he/she is elected from the parliament? You said "Thus the President is elected by everyone across Australia." NO! YOU MAKE A BIG MISTAKE! When the president elected direct from the people he does not need the people until the next presidential elections. BUT WHEN HE IS ELECTED FROM THE POLITICAL PARTIES THEN THE POLITICAL PARTY/TIES WHICH ELECTED HIM THEY NEED US. In the state elections, federal elections, City councils etc. When they need us we can press them and we have many opportunities many ways to press them. There are so many candidates for federal or state parliament, Senate, so many candidates for city majors etc. When he elected from parliament we have a chance to press BUT WHEN THE PRESIDENT ELECTED DIRECT WE CAN NOT DO ANYTHING FOR THE NEXT YEARS. If the president elected direct then the role from the mass media is very big, they play a very important role but they can not play so big role if he is elected from the parliament, for the election of so many candidates for the parliament senate etc. When the role of the media is smaller then the role of the people is bigger, then our democracy is healthier.
If Passy you want a better control on politicians until the next elections at least on the major issues as war in Iraq, I WANT TOO, then we must be ready any time to use the online referendums, this kind of elections cost very little, can organized very fast although there is a little risk for fraud. But comparing the benefits from the referendum with the risks, the benefits advanced any risk.
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

Thanks Antonios

I think if you re-read my post, especially about the automatic right of recall, you'll see you and I are in agreement.

It would for example stop an elected john Kerr sacking Gough Whitlam because we the people would give him a deadline to give his views on support or otherwise for the PM. If he doesn't support the PM we sack the President then and there.

Anyway, I think I may have inadvertently taken people away from the article and the author's arguments. In our present society the idea of elected representatives subject to automatic recall will not arise, and in the context of the residency question has, possibly, too many impracticalities (as well as raising the obvious question, why have a figure head as head of state either elected or not)?

regards

It is widely accepted that the 1999 referendum was defeated not because of public support for the monarchy but because of confusion and uncertainty about the question which proposed the Queen and the Governor-General should be replaced by a president appointed by a two-thirds majority of members of Federal Parliament.

Many people did not want politicians to have the final say in selecting a president.

If a referendum were held - perhaps to coincide with the next election in 2010 - major political parties would be arguing the detail, not the principle.

But the precise blueprint for a future republic in Australia could again meet opposition. Some would want a president elected by the people while others would prefer (and I'm one of them) appointment by a joint sitting of Federal Parliament.

However, it is time to urge people to rationally examine their attitude to a republic and the selection of a domestic head of state and become involved in sensible, bi-partisan debate.

Australia will eventually become a republic.

The only question is, when?

Foxy said: "But the precise blueprint for a future republic in Australia could again meet opposition. Some would want a president elected by the people while others would prefer (and I'm one of them) appointment by a joint sitting of Federal Parliament."

Foxy, if the referendum allows us to choose the method of selection (without anymore political party tricks in the wording) then democracy is served.

There will always be opposition and I also prefer a bi-partisan appointment by parliament but if the majority wanted to select a Head of State via popular election then so be it. I believe most Australians would accept the outcome as a win for democracy no matter their own preference.

I voted no at the last referendum for the same reasons as many other Republicans. However, at the moment I don't think our representatives are quite mature enough just yet. They squabble and bicker, rather than debate and write mature laws. It really bothers me they have to keep copying laws from other nations such as the UK or the USA, rather than coming up with an original thought. Our representatives do not know what leadership means on the international level. Something that being a republic requires, i think. We defer to other nations rather than taking an independent stand (now i suppose this is partly because we are still a Monarchy). Our representatives are parochial luddites who can't stand the thought of freedom. Still that attitude could change quite quickly, depending on the ability of new leaders.

As for the article, it's a terrible one.